Welcome to Echoing the Sound. You'll find that quite a few things have changed here since the last iteration of the board so be sure to check out the FAQ. This is a completely fresh start - You'll need to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed (and look for the registration email in your spam folder). To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sickened by the fact that people are taking advantage of this situation, and using it as an excuse to get riled up about gun control. It's the same routine. Some tragedy like this happens, people get riled up, and two, three weeks later, people forget, except those who actually lost people in the situation. If you think something should happen, please, go out and try to make it happen. Don't become a part of the fad.

Personally though, I really don't think there's much anyone can do to make us safer. I mean, if this guy didn't have a gun, he could have easily done like this guy and used a knife.http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/385705...na-authorities
What then? Do we call for knife control? Some of you may disagree with me, but still, that doesn't change the fact that everyone should love their friends, family and people in general as much as possible.

Like I said after the Colorado TDKR shooting, we need more stringent gun control in the mental health area. As someone who has bought guns and does not support any kind of ban I clearly see the benefit of a mental health physical of sorts to buy a gun, if medication is involved that needs to be clearly made obvious to gun sellers and part of the overall process. I'm a pro-gun person, but this is clearly a problem and something needs to done to address it other than knee-jerk "let's ban guns" reactions.

Yes personally I wouldn't ban guns either - contrary to (what seems to be) popular belief, we haven't banned guns in the UK. We had a school shooting, and so we banned semi automatics and certain pistols, and remaining weapons subject to some of the most stringent checks in the world. Many rifles & all Shotguns etc are still Kosher if you pass the tests.

Result? No school shootings since the mid 90s. In fact I think we've had 2-3 spree shooters in the past 20 years, and they never manage more than half a dozen murders. This is really something, and especially when you consider the UK encompasses Northern Ireland, subject to a diminished but ongoing civil conflict which you have nothing like in the US

When I saw your username I though "here we go", but I agree with your sentiments totally. USA is a democracy and clearly a lot of people want guns, so a compromise has to be struck

I just read the entire wikipedia entry on school shootings. Now I'm an expert and will charge a healthy fee to speak on TeeVee.

I ran across several points that challenged my own assumptions and opinions:
- Shooter Profiles: not many similarities can be found in their backgrounds, economic status or family life. The only commonalities are that most of the shooters are male (only two recorded female), most are on antidepressants, and to a lesser extent many are bullied.
- There are several cases in which an armed student or teacher has been able to stop or prevent a massacre.
- On the other hand, there are also examples of armed police not being able to stop or shorten one.
- The height of homicides in schools reached a peak in the early 90s. That decade saw the most school shooting deaths in the US by a significant margin.
- There was one teacher at Sandy Elementary who did have several guns: the shooter's mother. That's where he got all or most of his weaponry (this point is not in the wiki, but an article I just read).

What's the point? I don't entirely know, I'm just tired of having the same conversation over and over and wanted to try to understand a bit more about what was going on. From what I can gather these shootings are happening in an ecosystem. There is no single solution be it more guns, gun control or access to mental health. It should be noted also that our problems with seeking treatment for mental health issues aren't purely about access. Many people don't have any idea what's available to them, and are surrounded by a culture that ostracizes and shames the mentally ill. The UK may have banned handguns, and it definitely had a positive impact, but that's simply not going to happen in the US. The best we can hope for is more hoops for people to jump through when people are buying guns, and less hoops when seeking treatment for mental illness. Neither of these remedies will stop school shootings, which have been recorded as far back as the 1700s, but they will mostly likely reduce them.

You fail to mention that nobody in that article died. I think it's a fact that it's a lot harder to commit mass murder with a gun than a knife.

You're correct that this type of mindless violence will exist whether gun control is heavy or lax, but it sure makes it a helluva lot harder for someone to commit these acts if semi-automatics and large-capacity clips are eliminated from the equation. Knives and horse manure can be used for more than killings; guns only serve one purpose.

Not sure if you noticed but, prohibition doesn't work very well in the USA. China also has banned drugs but the USA has LOTS more drug use than China. Unless you want to bring in tons of human rights violations to enforce gun prohibition... it won't be very effective.

Not sure if you noticed but, prohibition doesn't work very well in the USA. China also has banned drugs but the USA has LOTS more drug use than China. Unless you want to bring in tons of human rights violations to enforce gun prohibition... it won't be very effective.

Bad comparison, the way people consume drugs and the way people consume weapons are totally different in terms of dynamics... peope's drug consumption is totally different to how people buy/consume weapons. Would anyone buy guns at the rate they buy weed, heroin, MDMA? Obviously not. By your logic we could say there's no point in making nuclear weapons or child porn illegal for people to own, as anything proscribed will inevitably be consumed in the EXACT same way (utter bollocks mate, come on!)

Have you really thought about what you're saying, or just looking for the first ostensibly plausible comparison?

The Western countries that have employed stringent gun control have enjoyed success in reducing gun crime - why don't you make that comparison? Because the facts won't reinforce your view of the situation, I daresay

You said prohibition of any kind doesn't work in the USA... you then immediately pointed out an example of drug prohibition not working in China, presumably to prove that it won't work in USA?

That was a comparison... either that or you just arbitrarily decided to mention how some kinds of prohibition don't work in China, and how "it won't be very effective (in the USA)" immediately after that.

You said prohibition of any kind doesn't work in the USA... you then immediately pointed out an example of drug prohibition not working in China, presumably to prove that it won't work in USA?

Originally Posted by DigitalChaos

no, not at all. go back and read it again
reading comprehension fail or you are trolling

When talking about guns, you pointed out that drug prohibition in China isn't 100% successful. Either you decided to arbitrarily point out that fact for no reason at that specific point, or you pointed it out to illustrate that gun prohibition in America would fail the way drug prohibition in China has.

Here's what you just said ;

Originally Posted by DigitalChaos

Not sure if you noticed but, prohibition doesn't work very well in the USA. China also has banned drugs but the USA has LOTS more drug use than China. Unless you want to bring in tons of human rights violations to enforce gun prohibition... it won't be very effective

So what was your point? If not that gun prohibition would fail just like chinese drug prohibition has - which you have just said was not the point you were trying to make

I really don't know what to say? I know DRUG prohibition isn't effective - I acknowledged that when I said that the two things have different dynamics in terms of consumptionb

prohibition works in China, it doesn't work in USA. That is what I said. How the fuck you see that as "prohibition doesn't work in China" is beyond me. That is why comparing China and USA prohibition is silly.

Are you still ignoring the fact that prohibition is very different compared to control and that you cant just use the two interchangeably?

prohibition works in China, it doesn't work in USA. That is what I said. How the fuck you see that as "prohibition doesn't work in China" is beyond me. That is why comparing China and USA prohibition is silly.

Are you still ignoring the fact that prohibition is very different compared to control and that you cant just use the two interchangeably?

What do you mean by "works"? People still engage in the trafficking and consumption of contraband, that's why prohibition doesn't work in China. China has a LOT of drug addicts. In what way is Prohibition working?

I'm sorry if I've got you wrong - what exactly where you trying to say? I honestly thought you were saying that outright state control of certain things won't lead to civilians ending their abuse of said things... I assumed you were equating Chinese drugs with American guns - what were you actually saying?

And I think you're using the two interchangeably here - I made it clear in my reply to 50 volt that I think control is what the US needs - not outright banning -, and you alone have seen "prohibition" as something being proposed here

What do you mean by "works"? People still engage in the trafficking and consumption of contraband, that's why prohibition doesn't work in China. China has a LOT of drug addicts. In what way is Prohibition working?

I'm sorry if I've got you wrong - what exactly where you trying to say? I honestly thought you were saying that outright state control of certain things won't lead to civilians ending their abuse of said things... I assumed you were equating Chinese drugs with American guns - what were you actually saying?

China has much less drug use than the USA. I am saying that this demonstrates a more effective drug prohibition in China than the USA. Therefore, it isn't a good justification to say that any of China's success with gun prohibition is a justification for doing in the USA.

What I hate is when morons do this they always commit suicide at the end. Fucking off yourself without involving other people. Probably the main reason they do this is to not get tried or convicted but still...

What I hate is when morons do this they always commit suicide at the end. Fucking off yourself without involving other people. Probably the main reason they do this is to not get tried or convicted but still...

I agree. If you plan to kill yourself in the end then just skip to the fucking end. I'll never understand how anyone could bring themselves to commit such atrocities. I'll never give them the excuse of being mentally unstable or insane. As far as I'm concerned these people are whiney self centered thick as shit scumbags and deserve to be tortured.

Sorry, don't mean to rant. Just hearing about these sort of things depresses and angers me. Much love to all those who have to cope with the damage this idiot has caused. I can't even begin to imagine how hard this must be for them

China has much less drug use than the USA. I am saying that this demonstrates a more effective drug prohibition than the USA. Therefore, saying that any of China's success with gun prohibition is a justification for doing in the USA isn't a solid plan.

China's way of enforcing laws in general is far different than the U.S. Comparing an authoritarian regime with a democratic country isn't the best way to make your point. I'm sure drug enforcement is also much more severe in China.

I understand that if someone wants to buy a gun badly enough they'll find a way, but limiting ways for mentally unstable people to get a hold of weapons will go a long way to ensure acts of mass murder don't happen as frequently as they are occurring now. I'm fine with people having a six-shooter at home to protect themselves or someone having a hunting rifle for sport. On the other hand, assault rifles and high-capacity magazines serve no purpose in everyday life - it's meant for the battlefield. When the 2nd amendment was made they didn't have guns that enabled a single person to inflict mass casualties in a matter of seconds; not every right given in the 1700's should be applied verbatim in 2012.

China's way of enforcing laws in general is far different than the U.S. Comparing an authoritarian regime with a democratic country isn't the best way to make your point. I'm sure drug enforcement is also much more severe in China.

That is EXACTLY my point. Without lots of human rights violations (as mentioned in my first post) and government oppression we won't see effective gun prohibition in the USA. I don't think a single person asking for gun prohibition in the USA is ready to say that we need that level of enforcement

I understand that if someone wants to buy a gun badly enough they'll find a way, but limiting ways for mentally unstable people to get a hold of weapons will go a long way to ensure acts of mass murder don't happen as frequently as they are occurring now. I'm fine with people having a six-shooter at home to protect themselves or someone having a hunting rifle for sport. On the other hand, assault rifles and high-capacity magazines serve no purpose in everyday life - it's meant for the battlefield. When the 2nd amendment was made they didn't have guns that enabled a single person to inflict mass casualties in a matter of seconds; not every right given in the 1700's should be applied verbatim in 2012.

You are back to talking about control, not prohibition. My comment applies only to prohibition.

This would probably happen a lot less frequently in the US, if the US hurried up and banned guns.

See when this happened in Scotland? In the Dunblane Massacre? We banned guns in the UK. There's been a lot less shootings since then. Because we're not all a bunch of psychos and we handed in our guns.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who advocates gun ownership in the US from now on wants to kill children.

On NPR tonight Robert Siegal talked to Mark Follman of Mother Jones Magazine. Follman had worked on piece that looked into “mass shootings,” they were defined by four people killed (and the gunman [but not always].)
I am paraphrasing, but I think I have their figures right, in the last 30 years according to the magazine article, there has been 61 mass shootings. This year had the most with 7. Again there may have been other parameters to their definition of mass shooting, (like maybe not during other planned criminal activity) I just heard it on the radio have not looked into the article yet.
Just a little more data/figures for the discussion. (Again, I have not looked into this more since hearing it on the radio, so this info may not be 100% accurate or accurate within a framwork)
Of course, also, on NPR they started talking about more thorough background checks (with some or pundits/journalists), but the concept of “privacy” came up and most agreed that would be the “hard issue.”

Yup. Control is going to be the most effective way, in the US. I like the way CA has been doing things. You not only have to pass background checks but you have to demonstrate basic safety & legal understandings of firearms (via test/certification) before you can buy them. I wish more states would do this. CA's bans on arbitrary gun parts is not a model to follow though.

I'll never give them the excuse of being mentally unstable or insane. As far as I'm concerned these people are whiney self centered thick as shit scumbags and deserve to be tortured.

(flame suit on)

Wow. Now, I really haven't read much on this story yet (just had my own family loss, so really not in the mood), so I'm not going to say whether I believe this guy had extreme issues versus just being a bad egg. But I can't let your statement go...are you just completely and utterly oblivious to how the human body works? When I read your above quote, I see "Alzheimer's is bullshit, those old fucks are just forgetful". Like it or not, people can actually be truly incapable of what you or I would call rational thought. Sometimes the result relatively harmless, but sometimes, it can lead to violence towards others. Your attitude towards mental disorders is painfully ignorant, and it's views like this that make it so difficult to try to actually help people.

Wow. Now, I really haven't read much on this story yet (just had my own family loss, so really not in the mood), so I'm not going to say whether I believe this guy had extreme issues versus just being a bad egg. But I can't let your statement go...are you just completely and utterly oblivious to how the human body works? When I read your above quote, I see "Alzheimer's is bullshit, those old fucks are just forgetful". Like it or not, people can actually be truly incapable of what you or I would call rational thought. Sometimes the result relatively harmless, but sometimes, it can lead to violence towards others. Your attitude towards mental disorders is painfully ignorant, and it's views like this that make it so difficult to try to actually help people.

I try not to be utterly defined by the fact that I grew up with a mentally ill parent, but there's no doubt that it has done its part in shaping who I am and how I react to certain tragedies. A few years ago, I came to the decision that I was sick and tired of feeling uncomfortable talking about it, and I started opening my eyes to the way the stigma and silence and ignorance surrounding mental illness make the whole situation significantly worse for my mother, my family, and everyone else in the world who is touched by mental illness in some way. I want to do what little I can to change that, so I try and talk about mental illness frankly and openly and often publicly. It might be a futile endeavor, because the more you realize how easy it is for most people to dehumanize the mentally ill, the more overwhelmed you become by the enormity of the problem.

As I became more directly aware of mental illness (I have a literally-crazy mother-in-law) I really began to see modern cultures in a very different light. The mentally ill are subjects of mockery, both gentle and extreme, and as evidenced by friends-of-friends on facebook, they are characterized as practically supernatural. If you have conservative-leaning friends in conservative parts of the country, look at what their friends are saying. This is evil! This is Satan's work! This man is a monster!

Except no. These aren't people who deserve to be tortured. They are people who live with daily mental torture you really cannot understand until you've lived with someone with severe mental illness. And a lot of it can be treated, but not in a country where quality health care comes with an incredible price tag.

To write this off as an excuse for the existence of evil spirits, to proclaim that torturing people like this somehow will justify anything - I'm at a loss for words as to how I describe that kind of thinking. It's not thinking. It's a purely emotional response. It's oblivious to observed reality.

This would probably happen a lot less frequently in the US, if the US hurried up and banned guns.

See when this happened in Scotland? In the Dunblane Massacre? We banned guns in the UK. There's been a lot less shootings since then. Because we're not all a bunch of psychos and we handed in our guns.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who advocates gun ownership in the US from now on wants to kill children.

That's easier said than done in the United States. The Second Amendment in our Bill of Rights says that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. I can agree with banning assault rifles and automatic weapons because neither are designed for hunting or for self-defense. However, an all-out ban on firearms requires a Constitutional amendment that I have a feeling would not be able to be ratified.

And are you saying that hunters who are responsible and have enough sense to keep their guns locked up and unloaded in the house, and who have taught their own children gun safety and responsibility, are child-killers?

Almost cried when read about this. Events like this happening every other day makes me glad to live in a country with gun control legislation. The fact that tragedies like these are akin to natural disasters is completely unacceptable. As for the mental health question, maybe if attempts to discuss universal healthcare (another reason I feel safe here in Australia) weren't met with dismissal as advocating "socialist death panels" and other such impenetrable nonsense I'd have more faith in that kind of focus.

That's easier said than done in the United States. The Second Amendment in our Bill of Rights says that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. I can agree with banning assault rifles and automatic weapons because neither are designed for hunting or for self-defense. However, an all-out ban on firearms requires a Constitutional amendment that I have a feeling would not be able to be ratified.

And are you saying that hunters who are responsible and have enough sense to keep their guns locked up and unloaded in the house, and who have taught their own children gun safety and responsibility, are child-killers?

You will also have trouble because nowhere in the constitution does it say firearms are a right explicitly because of hunting or self-defense. Some would argue that guns are to keep government in check.